First of all, what you refer to is called advertising. yes, it is different than marketing.
Second, needing to research things intensively has nothing to do with marketing OR advertising. It is a result of choice. Advertsising is makign commercials. marketign is figuring out how to best *market* your product. Marketing does not even require advertising. Nor does advertising require marketing.
Increased choice leads to a larger field of research. If there are only two cars, then what you need to research is a small sample compared to say a thousand different cars.
Marketing at it's core is about making the research less intensive, not more. Advertising well that's about product awareness and really nothing more and often fails to help you in your research at best and hinders it at worst.
An example in cars again. Lending your new sports car model to various car magazines to play with, run tests on and so on is an example of good marketing. It provides the prospective consumer with information useful for their decision such as handling capability, crash tests, performance characteristics, etc.. Some advertisiements do similar.
Specifically, an ad for a Honda that talks about the safety features and crash testing results is good marketing. It is minimally informative (consider the time slot) and demonstrates the understanding that to likely Honda buyers safety is a primary cosideration. Contrast that with Chevy's new Cobalt commercials. That is advertising. It simply gets the name out there and attempts to associate the new model with a perception. Personally, I feel it is a thinly disguised Corvette commercial.
And for many things, you don't have to be a dedicated researcher. You just need to actually look. The more options you have, the more digging you may need to do.
I don't like arbitrary authority, so I don't like big centralized government. On the other hand, I cannot think of another way to slow down the assholes who want to charge me for the privilege of working (using "their" "intellectual" "property"). It's a dilemma that I don't know how to resolve.
I understand your dilemma and frustration. I also understand the solution to your problem, and why it is hard to see it. Many people say if it was't for (big) government who would protect us from the corporations. It's a valid concern. Fortunately, the solution involves finishing what you intellectually started.
What is a corporation? It is a charter granted *by government* to provide immunities that actual people do not get. If the government did not grant these charters, these immunities from otherwise criminal or actionable actions then the would-be corporation is far less likely to get away with things.
Further, most of the truly bug corporations got that way and stay that way from government contracts and favors. The sheer size and financial power of the US government is a massive unbalancing factor in the natural growth of companies. By removing this unnatural factor, companies will not get quite as large and as powerful.
The "intellectual property" is a fiction created at the behest of the massive corporations (an extension of government) to further extend their unnatural advantages over natural persons and competitors. Thus if one were to eliminate big government and in so doing eliminated the corporate charter and onerous "IP" laws, your dilemma is resolved.
Wouldn't it be better if a women going to her car can look at surveillance cameras up the block to make sure she will arrive safely? Or a citizen's watch groups can virtually patrol it's own neighbourhood?
No.
The situation you are describing leads to people *not* being on the streets. It is the lack of people on the streets that provides the opportunity for criminal activity. We've learned this through observing the actions of the people in the cities and their municipal goverment.
Often the government (police/city council) decides they are going to create a "safe area" only to find it infested with crime while other areas get cleared of it. In nearly every case it has been due to traffic patterns of people walking down the sidewalk. The more people that populate the sidewalks, the less criminal activity pays off.
When analyzed by pedestrian traffic patterns it is seen that front yards too small for children to play in in favor of community playgrounds or apartment complexes/"projects" that focus on a central courtyard disrupt the flow of people and create zones where criminal/violent behaviour flourishes. In areas where such attempts as plannign have not been used, the traffic patterns are "normal" and have a correspondingly lower crime rate.
Cameras won't solve the problem. The problem is not one of surveillance, but physical presence. Most criminals prey on the weak, or those they perceive as such. They also generally only do it when they think they can get away with it. Cameras to the street thug or rapist or such are not a deterrent becuase the perp knows the response times are not enough to actually prevent him or her from pulling it off, and of course they figure they can get away with it.
The strongest deterrent to attacks on the street is physical presence of people who might oppose the would be attacker. Thus using cameras for a potential ability to perform surveillance would lead to an increase of risk due to less people being physically on the street.
This is one of the "modern miracles" of central planning called "zoning". By mandatign a clear and signfiicant distance between people's homes and the places they need to go you eliminate walking to the local store to pick up some milk as an activity. You eliminate the use of sidewalks on a frequent basis. And in so doing you increase the chance of violent behaviour on the streets.
Further, the idea of a woman checking her cameras prior to going out to her car is a dangerous one for it's aiding and abetting a feeling of dread, fear, and low level terror. It decreases the personal feeling of freedom and increases her fear of people leading again to an increase to societal decline. The more the feeling of non-specific fear pervades, the easier it is for the attacker to be effective in shorter amounts of time.
Hey, lets just pick that one random problem to harp on, shall we? How do you propose to block enough GCR for the trip?
Read the reports. The GCR risk has been heavily overstated. The National Academy of Sciences' BEIR report puts the estimated risk of fatal cancer at 1.8% per 100rem for men and 1.35% for men (reduced risk of breast cancer).
GCR for the trip there and back is expected to be 31.8 rem for the conjunction class trip. On planet exposure is approximately 10.6 rem. Thus the expected exposure to GCR over the whole trip is 42.4. This means that the increased risk of a fatal cancer developing over the remainder of the astronauts lifeitme is less than 1%.
Curious that you asked about GCR, not solar flares. Flares are the larger danger in transit as they are bursts, not a little over a long time. Sudden doses of radiation are more dangerous to astronauts than long term low level exposure.
Of course, these are easy to shield against as the layout of the hab and supplies handles that for you. Thus, depending on solar cycle the average dose from solar flares over the course of the trip is 5.5 during transit and 4.1 on planet.
This brings us a total average dose expectancy of 52rem for both GCR and flares. Again, the risk exposure is about a 1% increase in the risk of fatal cancer. So you see, once you know the actual details radiation is not a significant risk. The launch is a more significant risk than the radiation. Heck driving to the launch site likely carries a higher risk of fatal injury than the radiation risk.
If non-smoking astronauts had a 20% chance of developing fatal cancer before the trip, they raised their chance to just under 21% after the trip.
Regarding the need to develop hardware... much of that has been ongoing, and even ESA and NASA put an 8 year time from go to launch for development. You make it sound as if we are proposing we already have everything,. and that is a blatant mischaracterization. That said, MD stand on the shoulders of previous giants, whereas things like Apollo had no shoulders to stand on.
"...things act differently in strange environments" Please. Physics and chemistry do not change just because we are on Mars. You'd think/. geeks would understand that.
The moon was not done for science at all. It was entirely a flags and footprints mission. Yet we gained a lot of scientific value from it in the process of doing it.
It also uses the least testing.
Depends on what you consider testing. Many things do not need testing because we already know them to work, or have already tested them. The 90-day report called for developing an entirely new industry: on-orbit construction. Yes, that requires a great deal of testing because it is entirely new.
We've had ongoing test and development for several years already (and some aspects for a decade). The crucial aspects of the MD reference mission are actually better tested than the crucial components of Apollo. Indeed, most of MD will be far better tested than Apollo even aspired to.
The entire ISPP system can be fully tested here on Earth. The rover testing likewise is being carried out here on Earth. The Flashline and Desert research stations are conducting tests on suit manueverability and characteristics, metabolic rates during activity, on-site research methodologies, system interoperability, hab layout and material construction.
Apollo's orbital rendezvous was never tested - it couldn't be. MD doesn't use OR. It used tried and true "launch rocket direct to destination" method for both Earth departure and Mars departure.
The Mars Homestead Project plans actually call for full scale on-Earth implementation prior to launch. You can not got any more tested than that. Complete integration of each and every on site system including the human component. MHP is aimed at colonization not just expeditions.
Nuclear is NOT an alternative energy source. It is a very dirty and dangerous power source. Anyone that believes that nuclear power is clean, cheap and safe has been brainwashed by the well-funded nuclear industry's public relations arm.
Or are atomic scientists or know enough about the reality, not the hype, or physics in general to know the truth. Physics doesn't lie. Coal plants put more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants. Fact. Even the worst accidents on record are not even a drop in the bucket in comparison to the fatalities caused every year by non-nuclear power generation systems. As of a few years ago, using small scale efforts, over 10% of the contaminated land around Chernobyl has been reclaimed. Mostly through the use of phytoremediation (use plants that naturally decontaminate). Over half of the pre-incident population still lives ther and a large part of the land initially effected has radiation levels that have naturally decreased to the levels needed for producing clean (i.e. radiation free) food, water, and livestock.
"According to the Nuclear Energy Agency (a specialized agency within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries based in Paris) only 31 persons as of April 2001 had died as a direct consequence of the accident. They were all either plant personnel or directly involved in fighting the fire following the explosion. Another 140 individuals from these same groups suffered varying degrees of radiation sickness and health impairment, but all had recovered fully with no permanent consequences. During the period between 1990 and 1998, in the regions affected by the explosion and subsequent fallout, officials diagnosed 1,791 cases of thyroid cancer that were assumed to have been caused by the radiation release." -- Robert G. Williscroft of DefenceWatch.
And that's the worst real life actual event for nuclear energy. An event that is physically impossible in American reactor design.
Fact is we, the US, have decades of safe use of nuclear power reactors. Other countries have it as well. Once you get past the hype, you get enlightened.
Anyone who beleives nuclear is this horrible uncontainable monster has been brainwashed by lunatics and anti-reality scaremongers.
Mods: the parent post is not only insightful, it is incorrect. Please act accordingly.
Especially when the biggest fossil burning country reneges on Kyoto accords and is run by former president and vice president of oil or oil services companies.
Which country would that be? Since the US never agreed to the Kyoto accords, it can't renege on them. Bill Clinton signed it but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. In July 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing any international treaty that would damage the economy by restricting energy usage, raising the cost of fuels for transportation, heating and electricity.
So clearly you are talking about some other country. Care to share which one?
It can't be China since it is exempt, and has no president. Russia has a president, but because of economic downturns, Russia's emissions are already below 1990 levels.
Also, since the Kyoto treaty is/was not to go into effect until 2008, and the reduction targets were not to be measured until 2012 (according to Sen. Joe Lieberman), and this is only 2005 no country can have reneged on them yet as there are still three years until it becomes binding.
So, mods, where is the truthful, or shall we simply say accurate, information in the parent post? Or are we saying that wrong, inaccurate information is still good? (Remember, informative is a positive assessment in the/. rating system).
First off, your "use Martian resources for fuel" is a bit far-fetched at this point. It is "dream" technology, at least on Mars for the first few missions. Second, speed is only a small part of the problem. What about safety? What happens if a buggy brakes down 50K from the ship?
I'll assume you meant "breaks down", since it'll use "brakes" quite frequently.;)
Silly little bigot, even my 11 year old son knows the answer to that one: "The crew back at base hop in one of the other buggies and comes to get you, dad. Duh!". Then, you can take one of the u-rovers, head over to the first landing site (the first launch contains everything but the humans) and retrieve the backup p-rover. Since the p-rover is designed and built for multi-night journeys, the crew of the p-rover is in no additional danger from a transportation equipment failure.
Are you that lacking in ability to think? Good thing you don't work on any of this, clearly your mental capacity is ill-suited for it.
Also on your lunar dust example. Dust is clearly not an issue for the roborovers; what reality makes you think it would be for enclosed vehicles? none of the rovers in the MD plan rely on solar power, so dust on solar panels is not an issue. Fenders? We don't use them. You know, there are ways you can make yourself look less foolish. Researchng what you claim to know is a good one. had you done any research from what I gave you earlier, you would not have made such a stupid statement.
Yes, but untested on MARS. Hmm tested on the same composition of atmosphere, same pressure of atmosphere, the only thing lacking is the gravity levels and if you think they are that much of an effect, well then your opinions on such matters aren't worth the bits you've wasted on it. Or are you so naive you think chemistry is different on Mars? News flash: chemistry works there just as it does here.
In your dreams. Estimates range from roughly about 80B to 600B. And all those atmospheric toys you dream about will add even more.
Ahh more evidence of dealing with a bigot. Care to put up your so called estimates by people who know what they are talking about, or is this just more robotic public masterbating? I suspect you can't back up your claims, nor will you likely even try. You are certainly welcome to.
The intitial tests and calibration of the ISPP mechanisms were done by Lockheed Martin in the early nineties. We know the costs. But you obviously have your mind made up and will refuse to be swayed by the facts and reality of the situation. Nonetheless these facts are linked to further down, as people with rational, functioning minds will find them interesting.
Imagine tripping on the slope near Burns Cliff where Opportunity explored at a fairly steep angle. An astronaut could tumble and bounce for a while down the slope of such a crater *gaining momentum* as they go. That crater is roughly stadium size. By the time Neil bounces to the bottom, he will have quite the momentum even under lower gravity. Remember those animations of the bouncy air bag landings? That is Neil bouncing down the walls of Endurance Crater. Low gravity means higher bounces, meaning less control over which part of you hits a sharp rock when you tumble down slopes.
Fortunately, Neil isn't as dumb as you are. He attaches a climbing rope to the rover before doing things like that. He then clips his suit to the rope attached to the rover and safely moves along.
Which is why we take the lab with us!
Not for a mere 25B.
Hardly. The cost of geological equipment is a drop in the bucket. Funny, you seem to think you can put them on rovers for under a billion but that somehow people aren't smart enough to put them on a hab for 25 billion. Your ignorance is glowing brightly. Besides, you clearly fail to understand that the cost of equipment you don't have to modify to work via robotic manipulation is less. Combine this with the fact that per-missio
While your post is generally good... Hydrogen can be built *instantly* with some electrolysis (either chemically or solar powered). I did it myself at home when i was a kid. You put these water-filled tubes in a bucket (upside down),insert the electrodes, add some acid as catalyst, and plug the wires into a battery. Voila! Oxygen in one, hydrogen in the other. Now Try making oil from wood with your chemistry kit.
There are more ways than one to produce oil. Indeed, your example of turning wood into oil is actually understood, but it doesn't require a chemistry set or millions of years. TCP, Thermal Conversion Process, uses one of the methods that produced the oil we mine: heat and pressure.
If we can turn waste into oil, and we've proven we can, then we have a renewable resource. We've solved two problems with one solution (waste and energy resources in this case oil), provided zero-net atmospheric CO2 gain (if using ag wastes as the input), and taken advantage of the existing infrastructure. Sure, we could use wood, but it just isn't as efficient as using things like agricultural waste, dead animals, rubber tires, refigerator parts, human waste, etc. depending on what you want out of the process. Oh, and the efficiency of this process is roughly the same as electrolysing the water into hydrogen.
Given a choice between the two, I'd choose the already known process that utilizes existing infrastructure, existing transportation technology, and reclaims waste.
My problem with the "push for H2" is that it is always dependant on the government. The government will waste billions of dollars on "research grants" that for the most part just go to pay a salary for research assistants. If instead they government offered a bounty as the Ansari X-Prize did, I'd be less skeptical of calls for publicly funded hydrogen economy research.
I agree the parent post was not worthy of "insightful". Sadly, most so-moderated posts these days are in that category.
Compare that to a single human rover carrying a pair of scientists that can cover 100-150 kilometers per day.
No way. That is not realistic. The moon buggies moved only a few kilometers a day. Also, they had to stay fairly close to the ship in case there was a problem. There is no AAA on Mars. The best geology sites are usually rocky ones, and humans are not going to be able to move very fast around such. On flat land, such as where Opportunity landed, a rover could cruise around relatively fast also (although Oppy in particular was not built for speed).
Actually, it is very realistic. It's even conservative. Martian produced methane/oxygene (or even ethylene/oxygen), or methane powered internal combustion engines provide a lot more oomph for the pound than electrically driven rovers. The moon posessed no on site resources such as are used for the MD and MH plans. With this added size and power avaialble, larger wheels with more "offroad" suspension designed for cruising rocky areas is a viable means of transportation. The mars Society has had ongoing research and experimentation with rovers designed for this purpose. Indeed, the 38% gravity is aboon to getting up and over rocky outcroppings when compared to existing capabilities on Earth.
Given a maximum effective speed of a 1000Kg rover fully loaded of 15Km/hour the daylight only range of a pressurized rover is approximately 180Km. 15Km/hour over rough terrain is well within our capabilities. That's just under 10 MPH. As someone who has done a lot of off-roading 10MPH is not difficult to acheive as an average. It *might* be for a current navigation AI/robot combination but not in a human operated rover. For reference, human wallking speed on earth is about 3-5Mph average IIRC.
And ina rocky area a human will navigate it faster and with more success and leeway than our current robotic technology allows. Maybe someday (I hope), but not in the near future barring unexpected breakthroughs.
A roborover, being limited in power and designed capabilites, as well as AI, will largely be single-minded.
That is false. The rovers often did imaging while running spectragraph readings.
No, I said "largely", and your example proved me correct. A human can do more than imaging while spectragraph readings are going on. he or she could be doing digging, land assessment, route planning, imaging, chemical composition testing, and so on. Indeed, a human can run several of these at a time. We know, we do it today here on Earth.
Regarding "sight", sure robots can "see" additional colors and so on. But so can a human using the equipment. Only it doesn't need to be integrated into a robotic mechanism. it's not like we'll be sending humans w/o equipment here, for crying out loud. "Sorry Joe but only what your eyes tell you". Nope, not happening.
With a manned expedition, we will be producing fuel from martian resources,
Not on the first missions. It would take far more study of Mars before we know how feasible that is. Nobody is going to risk life support on un-tried Mars resource extraction techniques.
You really need to get out more, so to speak. We've demonstrated the technology over a decade ago, and even refined it. It's gas era chemistry, man. Taking a hydrogen feedstock and using the Sabatier reaction (from the 1800's), we extract and mix with martian atmosphere (primarily the CO2 of which it is loaded) to produce methane, CO, ocygen and water. It's a simple and proven process. Many of the mechanisms have been in use by English, American, and Russian navies for a very long time.
Further, had you bothered to read up on it you woudl have known that the ISPP plans have the plants on site in advance and before humans leave Earth the needfuls have already been confirmed to have been produced.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in+situ+propel la nt+production%22+%22Pioneer+Astronautics%22&btnG=S earch Will get
Mars Direct is the "low end" of missions, and will cost around 40 billion dollars for a mission; the upper end numbers are generally around 200 billion for a mission. There's a reason not to trust the lower-end numbers: they involve almost no testing beyond the basics. The philosophy of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" was disastrous, and I find it unlikely that they'll embark on it when human lives, not robots, are at risk.
No, even NASA backed off of it's BG missions and now have changed their reference mission to Mars Semi-Direct. The 200 Billion doillar missions involved elaborate plans to build multiple Ark-like ships in orbit including space stations to do so, and so on. They've since backed off of this ludicrous plan.
MD is not "low end" it is reasonable and doable. It assumes technology no greater than that of the late sixeties. Using current technology the capabilities are far greater. Mars Direct is NOT FBC, it is "oh this makes more sense than that other way", despite your mischaracterization.
In situ propellant production for the return trip and on-site travel, in addition to in situ production of the water and oxygen needed for a 6 month stay cuts the launch costs tremendously. If you knew any of the MD details you would know that the level of redundancy is far and away more than any space mission to date. We even use robotics to land the first hab, earth return vehicle, resource production, rovers, etc. prior to human leaving the planet. And robotics are used to ensure we have the resources produced prior to launch as well. Never in the history of NASA has a mission had such a safety factor.
No testing? Are intentionally ignorant of the facts or just accidentally so? Perhaps you might gain from learning that teh Mars society is operating several research stations that test quite a variety of things. The In Situ production of fuel, air, and water has been done almost ad nauseum. Hab use, surveying equipment, suits, techniques, and human testing has been and continues to be ongoing.
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station Started in 2000: http://www.marssociety.org/arctic/index.asp
Mars Desert Research Station http://www.marssociety.org/mdrs/index.asp
In fact, the level of testing todate far exceed the level of testing for Apollo's on site needs. But that clearly doesn't seem to stop people from assuming the opposite when it suits them.;)
If mobility was desired for the robots, they can do it far better.
Absolutely and I never said the contrary. The difference is you start increasing costs fast, which rapidly reduces any perceived cost advantage.
Large roborovers will require larger launch vessels, which means upping the costs far more than the 400 million per rover.
BTW, before you keep extrapolating, the rover is *NOT* going to go "27,000 km of martian surface". It is a fuelled rover, and must return to base.
No kidding, gee you think as a designer of rovers I might have known that. Hmm guess it's back to the ol' drawing board. Not exactly.
You see, if you carried the original argument of area covered you would have realized what I was saying. You've got 360 degrees of direction to explore from from your landing point. Indeed it can be argued that this type of central base model provides a greater detail of a given area as opposed to meandering around.
Further, had I been extrapolating insted of doing simple math, I would have pointed out tha width of the travelled corridor. The roborovers being referenced have a corridor that is very small. In a rover that carries humans your corridor is expanded. Of course, so is your range. The pressurized rover designs being planned on include the ability to stay for several days in the rover, thus allowing you to remain in areas that show significant interest as well as provide additional range from walking and other mor elocalized modes of travel.
Before we spent a trillion dollars (conservatively, probably would be more) on colonizing an inhospitable planet,
Sigh. Another "trillion dollars" drone. How about reality which is more on the order of 25-40 billion for the full development up to and including the first mission, and 5-7 billion per mission after that.
Think, Research, Learn, Think again, then post.;)
I'd like to see some evidence that getting off earth is the best way to preserve the human species.
Not that I argue this as a cause for Mars, but asteroid impacts on earth would not be had on mars. By becoming more than a single-planet species we improve our odds of surviving that eventual impact.
If we are really concerned about survival, let's make the deserts bloom, reverse the destruction of the landscape, etc here on Earth... all infinitely easier than colonizing Mars.
Do you realize what would be involved in "getting the deserts to bloom"?!? Yeah only a small bit of terraforming the Earth to get the weather patterns to change or to enclose the deserts to eliminate natural weather as a factor, or control of the weather on a near continuous basis. Do you have any idea of the costs involved in that?
On the other hand, Martian colonization is cheap and easy in comparison. How big of colony do you consider a success in your guesses?
Mars represents an opportunity.
Consider resource usage. It has been shown that mining the asteroids from earth, the moon, or LEO/GEO is prohibitively expensive. However, using Mars as a base of operations for the mining, the costs including the Martian outpost costs, are not only workable but quite profitable.
An observatory on Mars would be more effective out outer system observation, as well as extra-system observation.
Actually we can. www.marssociety.org, Mars Direct, and so on. How about getting educated before making such ridiculous statements on slashdot where you wind up getting schooled?;)
And before you say it's horribly expensive: 26-39 billion inlcuding the first mission with additional missions 5.2-7 billion after that. The state of California could do it. As could Florida, or Texas, or even Hawaii. Bill Gates or Microsoft could do it and still have plenty in the bank. heck MS could practically do it off of interest.
NASA's annual budget is in the neighborhood of 15-16 billion/year IIRC. if done over a course of say 10 years, it'd run NASA about 3.9 billion/year on average, or about a quarter of their existing budget.
And we had the capability and technology to do it some 30 years ago.
far more likely to do real hard science, Robots don't do science. They gather data, nothing more. They are also just as prone to die, and are actually just as fragile just in different ways.
Would you go to a parade that had a team of 200 NASA engineers in it, or a group of dashing brave looking astrocore men and women?
The 200 engineers. More likely to get an inside track on a job there...assuming I were interested.
So, how long could a human stay on Mars? Two months at max?
Uhhh years. No offense but where do you get your information, slashdot?
The Mars Direct plan uses in situ production fo fuel, water, and oxygen and includes a 6 month on planet stay.
Given a means of producing food, a continually manned scientific outpost of 4-12 people could be easily sustained for many many years.
But for government tax dollars the goal should be the most most valuable science for the least most safe dollars.
Least most safe?
Is there any reason we couldn't design a team of robots to function nominally for 5 years?
Yes: costs and expertise. You'd need a roborover that could either perform maintenance on itself (complexity, weight, power) or one that didn't require any. Figure out the latter part and you'll make a fortune in maintenance free robots here on Earth.
Additinal complexity means more weight and power which means more development, equipment, and launch costs. These suckers already cost 400Mill apiece.
You could launch 50-500 (depending on your cost estimates) robotic mars missions for the cost of one manned mission, each exploring a different aspect of the planet. Pardon me if I think "better on the fly decision making" isn't worth 49-199 missions.
You are pardoned. And incorrect. The two rovers in question cost 600M combined, and each year beyond the first is apparently costing nearly 3 million dollars per month, at the cost of leaving 2 days a week for the rovers to sit and recharge.
So, using the actual costs (not estimates) and assuming the distribution holds by using the same rover design just sending more of them.
50 missions will cost about 20 billion dollars. 500 will cost you in the neighborhood of 200 billion dollars. No, economies of scale don't apply too well yet to launches and any cost benefits seen in launch costs will apply to manned missions as well so they are negated in your argument.
The Mars Direct plan was cost analyzed in 2004 by NASA and the ESA. NASA estimates the high end of 39.4 billion inlcuding the first mission, with follow on missions running 7 billion. The ESA has these figures at 26.6 and 5.2 billion respectively. Note these are six month on planet stays by four to six scientists, with a few tonnes of scientific equipment, and rover-vehicles capable of covering around 150+ Km/day. The cost of this would be spread out over about 5-12 years.
Thus the cost of your 500 roborover "plan" - which would have to cover a time span of over a hundred years if we could launch five per year - would pay for (200-40 = 160; 160/7 = 22) 23 manned expeditions to Mars using the much more expensive NASA calculations. Using the ESA costs your 500 roborover "plan" would pay for (200-27=173; 173/5.2=33) 34 manned missions to Mars. Again, assuming no benefits from economies of scale, and rounding in favor of higher costs.
However, the manned missions as specced out have so many redundancies that after the first dozen or so you could continue the same missions requirements for about 50-65% of the cost due to on site capabilities from previous missions. But we'll leave those out of the equation.
Also, assuming every other year launches for the manned expeditions gives is a time span of less than a hundred years. Annual launches would mean 24 years from the first launch. Add in 6 years of prior development and that's 30 years.
The area that can be covered by this mission design would take nearly 50 rovers of the current design about 60 years to accomplish when calulating time to arrival and assuming each one can operate for 4 years at full power (hardly a reasonable assumption at this time). Given the 6 month stay and rover vehicles, a four man team can cover up to 27,000Km of Martian surface. At 100m/day how many rovers will be needed to cover that same amount of ground? If we can get 2 years of them... about 90 IIRC. 90 roborovers will run you about 36 billion, and many many years.
Don't kid yourself. Far, far more science will get done with robotic missions for your dollar.
It seems it is you who is kidding us. Robotic exploration has it's place, but it is foolish to assume it is the most cost efficient manner. Robotic exploration is best suited for determining the best landing sites and on planet resources for the follow on human landings.
If you are not a robot-bigot, and instead are an openminded person, I'd recommend you to learn of and study Mars Direct, even Mars Semi-Direct, as well as the Mars Homestead Project. You'll find that your preconceived notions of manned exploration expense and robot efficacy are not in line with reality.
www.marssociety.org will be a good starting place.
For the same cost as astronauts, we can have 20 or more robots with higher bandwidth at 20 different locations. And, they can stay there a long time, unlike astronauts (unless we build a very expensive base). The Tortus wins this race in the end.
You assume a "big expensive base". Yet it has been shown that this is not needed. Robots have other shortcomings I'll deal with below. But one to address here is cost.Robots are very task oriented. If you discover something unexpected, or think of something you didn't several years ago when the project got started you now have another several year period to go back and retry something a bit differently. This problem is going to persist until we have full human form robots and a pretty darned good AI.
20 robots over 4 years are going to do more science than a couple of humans can in a month. And, cover a wider variety of territory.
First, you misuse the term "science". Collecting data and doing chemical analysis is not science. It is data gathering and performing chemical analysis. Science requires rational thought and the testing and re-evaluation of hypotheses. No robot without these capabilities can do "science". Therefore a million robots over a decade would do less science than a single human on Mars for a month. Robots are simple creations for specific, simple tasks. Nothing more.
That said, what are the scientific implications of humans on Mars as opposed to robots? Here, humans win hands down. The limitations of robots even in data mining are too costly for long term operations. Let us say for instance one of the rovers found a fossil. What can it it about it? Unless it was designed for fossil study, all it can do is take a picture. A human on site, however can examine the area for additional ones, assess the layout of the area visually, compare the layout of the fossile in relation and determine additinal courses of action and so on.
He or she could also communicate with a paleontologist back on Earth, for example, on the fossil and carry out additional studies on it with only a half hour delay as opposed to several years to design, build, and transport a new bot designed to do limited data gathering regarding the fossil.
And no, as someone who has had to deal with pictures as intel, pictures do not give you the layout and feel of the land that a human observer does.
On the "covered ground", sorry again you are incorrect. The cost of your 20 roborovers operating for 4 years is more, and covers less ground than a set of humans with rovers when you compare teh scientific return.
Look at the speed of the rovers. Double it. Now compare that with a set of humans using in situ fuel production to power a land based rover capable of covering over a hundred Km in a day. The two current roborovers can cover 100 meters in a full day. Compare that to a single human rover carrying a pair of scientists that can cover 100-150 kilometers per day. Your 20 roborovers (assuming they are no more costly than the current two) will cost you over 8 billion dollars. Each roborover can cover 100 meters distance in a day, making it a maximum of 36.5 kilometers in a year, or a maximum of 146Km over 4 years (assuming no losses of roborovers fo course) that's a maximum distance of Multiplied by 20 that's a maximum distance covered of about 2920 Km for your 8 billion.
Compare this to humans on planet for six months (the current reference mission of Mars Direct). Each day they have a maximum distance they can cover of 150Km. Assume further that only a single team goes out at a time. That comes out to 4500Km/month (30 days). Over the mission stay of six months that 4 person team can cover a maximum of 27,000Km. All this in a short six month period. The cost per mission of Mars Direct? About 5.2-7 billion.
So let us figure that out in dollars per Km covered as you claim is in favor
As a sys admin in an advertising department of a huge corporation, I've been trying to move my clients to OS X, but the lack of MAPI support (so my users can run an Outlook client and use the collaboration tools) has made this a pipe dream. Until Apple or MS ports MAPI, my users are stuck at OS 9. LDAP in my company is not an option, and the only other solution is Terminal Services. I wish Apple and Microsoft would clue into this -- I'm sure I'm not the only one with this issue... (emphasis added)
What makes you think MS doesn't already know this? Running OSX, even if running MS Apps there is an achilles heel to them. It gets you off of - or keeps you off of- their (Windows) platform, and even worse, moves you to a UNIX based platform. By not doing what you suggest they get to keep the "little guys" happy enough, but reserve the "big fish' for themselves.
I know personally of people considered and approached by google who do not have a degree. I've been in "degree only" positions w/o one.
It's why I apply anyway. If you've got the resume to back up your experience, I've found that many companies will be quite eager to consider you. I've even beat out people who have/had a degree.
Now, a college bound student w/o work history.. uhh yeah you are going to have a hard time finding work in a field where proven ability is important. it is one reason college students get "intern" positions which can often lead to full time jobs after graduation.
BTW, mods. There is nothing insightful about the parent, nor this post. Not even the fact that these posts are not insightful is insightful. Interesting, perhaps, but not worth of "insightful".
Maybe/. needs a "fanboy agreement of basic knowledge/opinion" modifier.
The question is, however, if you are presented the resume of someone with say close to decade of proven ability to do just that will you still shut them out for not having gotten a degree?
There is some geneva convention or something similar international agreament that blinding lasers are banned as military weapons. So the end result for laser warfare is that they make a STRONG laser intended to burn through tank, and the reflections from the tank that hit eye will have blinding result, but thats not the lasers MAIN purpose, an equipment destruction lasers are allowed in the agreament.
Wouldn't suprise me. On the 50 cal range in training this actually transpired:
"The Geneva convention disallows the use of the M2 as a weapon against personnel, only equipment. [pause] Your first target is that group of troops at 75 meters. Commence firing.
/me opens fire sending slags of metal into said targets.
instructor: Private, why did you open fire on those troops after being told it was illegal to do so?
me: Drill Sgt. I did not fire upon those troops. I opened fire on their LBE, weapons, and the tracked vehicle behind them! Those are all equipment and therefore legal targets.
instructor: Carry on, Private!
/me opens up again. *budda**budda**budda**budda*
You know, used right a ma deuce can be used to put out small range fires.
On the laser issue though, lasers used for rangefinding or guided munitions are perfectly legal. Hey if it happens to get blocked by someone's eye, oh well. Not like the incoming munitions wouldn't be finishing him off any moment anyway.
The NEA that we will choose (we haven't done that yet) will be "representative" of the class of potential impactors, i.e., it will have the key characteristics of NEAs that we might have to deflect later under operational conditions. So what does that mean since there are many asteroid types, sizes, rotation rates, etc.? Here we need to keep in mind our primary objective, i.e., to demonstrate the key capabilities necessary to move ahead to an operational system.
For example, it is not critical at all to choose an asteroid that would require a large amount of fuel just to get to it. In the case of an actual deflection mission the specific orbit of the asteroid will determine the fuel requirements for rendezvous. The capability to carry larger amounts of fuel, however, is not significant and can be met simply by launching with additional fuel and taking more time to rendezvous with the asteroid. So, for our purposes, we'll choose an asteroid that's "convenient" in terms of the fuel required and the time to get to it.
Another selection criterion that's essential is that we pick an asteroid that does not, in the foreseeable future, threaten the Earth, or come even close to doing so. We want to demonstrate the capability to deflect asteroids away from the Earth, not convert one that's a non-threat into a real threat! Of course this is an easy condition to meet since we know of no asteroid that currently threatens the Earth or would do so after our modest B612 maneuvers.
The OP made up a blatantly false article and it got through? Is it really too much to ask that you at least check the links in the article submission? After all, what if someone submitted links using tinyurl.com that were to shall we say less savory websites? Even a cursory 5 minute check of the B612 site would have shown the falseness of the submission.
The person submitting the article didn't happen to work for CBS or NBC, did s/he?
Considering the direction that corporate pensions and benefits are headed in the USA, which is: none (now 401K)
Actually, the 401ks are more stable and reliable than the old pension system. Under the old pension system if the company goes belly up, you lose it. With 401ks if the company goes belly up, your 401k is still there. Also, in an age of frequent job changes, a 401k provides carryover benefit whereas the pension system had you lose your accrued benefit.
and shrinking (eg. medical)
My medical coverage got better. But we are overinsured in that field so some "shrinkage" would be good. Boy there's joke in there somewhere.
Most US corporations require that employees sign away all their rights to any innovation, regardless of whether it was developed on the job (or even job-related) or not. Even without relinquishing such rights, the employee has little legal recourse in American courts.
Actually in my experience with BigCorps, unless your development can be shown to have been developed at work or at least directly related to your job they've mos toften lost in court. Most BigCorps know that their sweeping "we own everything you think about" agreements fail to hold water in court so they often silenty "ignore" your innovations that have nothing to do with your job and were not done on company time/owned equipment. The risk of losing in a public courtroom is too great a threat to the implied threat. Rather like "better to silently ignore it and let your agreement seem iron-clad than to sue and show it is full of holes".
I am not sure which is worst, the patent system or corporate greed.
The patent system. At least corproate greed drives some innovation, the patent system as it sits now is mostly used to block innovation (or even perceived innovation). Usually by corporate greed.
Take the patent (armed monopoly enforcement) away and corproate greed loses a main tool in stifling innovation and advancement.
You can't take away greed; corporate or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, what you refer to is called advertising. yes, it is different than marketing.
Second, needing to research things intensively has nothing to do with marketing OR advertising. It is a result of choice. Advertsising is makign commercials. marketign is figuring out how to best *market* your product. Marketing does not even require advertising. Nor does advertising require marketing.
Increased choice leads to a larger field of research. If there are only two cars, then what you need to research is a small sample compared to say a thousand different cars.
Marketing at it's core is about making the research less intensive, not more. Advertising well that's about product awareness and really nothing more and often fails to help you in your research at best and hinders it at worst.
An example in cars again. Lending your new sports car model to various car magazines to play with, run tests on and so on is an example of good marketing. It provides the prospective consumer with information useful for their decision such as handling capability, crash tests, performance characteristics, etc.. Some advertisiements do similar.
Specifically, an ad for a Honda that talks about the safety features and crash testing results is good marketing. It is minimally informative (consider the time slot) and demonstrates the understanding that to likely Honda buyers safety is a primary cosideration. Contrast that with Chevy's new Cobalt commercials. That is advertising. It simply gets the name out there and attempts to associate the new model with a perception. Personally, I feel it is a thinly disguised Corvette commercial.
And for many things, you don't have to be a dedicated researcher. You just need to actually look. The more options you have, the more digging you may need to do.
I don't like arbitrary authority, so I don't like big centralized government. On the other hand, I cannot think of another way to slow down the assholes who want to charge me for the privilege of working (using "their" "intellectual" "property"). It's a dilemma that I don't know how to resolve.
I understand your dilemma and frustration. I also understand the solution to your problem, and why it is hard to see it. Many people say if it was't for (big) government who would protect us from the corporations. It's a valid concern. Fortunately, the solution involves finishing what you intellectually started.
What is a corporation? It is a charter granted *by government* to provide immunities that actual people do not get. If the government did not grant these charters, these immunities from otherwise criminal or actionable actions then the would-be corporation is far less likely to get away with things.
Further, most of the truly bug corporations got that way and stay that way from government contracts and favors. The sheer size and financial power of the US government is a massive unbalancing factor in the natural growth of companies. By removing this unnatural factor, companies will not get quite as large and as powerful.
The "intellectual property" is a fiction created at the behest of the massive corporations (an extension of government) to further extend their unnatural advantages over natural persons and competitors. Thus if one were to eliminate big government and in so doing eliminated the corporate charter and onerous "IP" laws, your dilemma is resolved.
Wouldn't it be better if a women going to her car can look at surveillance cameras up the block to make sure she will arrive safely? Or a citizen's watch groups can virtually patrol it's own neighbourhood?
No.
The situation you are describing leads to people *not* being on the streets. It is the lack of people on the streets that provides the opportunity for criminal activity. We've learned this through observing the actions of the people in the cities and their municipal goverment.
Often the government (police/city council) decides they are going to create a "safe area" only to find it infested with crime while other areas get cleared of it. In nearly every case it has been due to traffic patterns of people walking down the sidewalk. The more people that populate the sidewalks, the less criminal activity pays off.
When analyzed by pedestrian traffic patterns it is seen that front yards too small for children to play in in favor of community playgrounds or apartment complexes/"projects" that focus on a central courtyard disrupt the flow of people and create zones where criminal/violent behaviour flourishes. In areas where such attempts as plannign have not been used, the traffic patterns are "normal" and have a correspondingly lower crime rate.
Cameras won't solve the problem. The problem is not one of surveillance, but physical presence. Most criminals prey on the weak, or those they perceive as such. They also generally only do it when they think they can get away with it. Cameras to the street thug or rapist or such are not a deterrent becuase the perp knows the response times are not enough to actually prevent him or her from pulling it off, and of course they figure they can get away with it.
The strongest deterrent to attacks on the street is physical presence of people who might oppose the would be attacker. Thus using cameras for a potential ability to perform surveillance would lead to an increase of risk due to less people being physically on the street.
This is one of the "modern miracles" of central planning called "zoning". By mandatign a clear and signfiicant distance between people's homes and the places they need to go you eliminate walking to the local store to pick up some milk as an activity. You eliminate the use of sidewalks on a frequent basis. And in so doing you increase the chance of violent behaviour on the streets.
Further, the idea of a woman checking her cameras prior to going out to her car is a dangerous one for it's aiding and abetting a feeling of dread, fear, and low level terror. It decreases the personal feeling of freedom and increases her fear of people leading again to an increase to societal decline. The more the feeling of non-specific fear pervades, the easier it is for the attacker to be effective in shorter amounts of time.
you do realise that there's quite a difference between a stay at the orbit and a quick leap up and coming down instantly?
/. nerd. Given all the Virgin jokes already in this thread, I'm suprised you had to ask. :)
Of course he does, he's a
Hey, lets just pick that one random problem to harp on, shall we? How do you propose to block enough GCR for the trip?
Read the reports. The GCR risk has been heavily overstated. The National Academy of Sciences' BEIR report puts the estimated risk of fatal cancer at 1.8% per 100rem for men and 1.35% for men (reduced risk of breast cancer).
GCR for the trip there and back is expected to be 31.8 rem for the conjunction class trip. On planet exposure is approximately 10.6 rem. Thus the expected exposure to GCR over the whole trip is 42.4. This means that the increased risk of a fatal cancer developing over the remainder of the astronauts lifeitme is less than 1%.
Curious that you asked about GCR, not solar flares. Flares are the larger danger in transit as they are bursts, not a little over a long time. Sudden doses of radiation are more dangerous to astronauts than long term low level exposure.
Of course, these are easy to shield against as the layout of the hab and supplies handles that for you. Thus, depending on solar cycle the average dose from solar flares over the course of the trip is 5.5 during transit and 4.1 on planet.
This brings us a total average dose expectancy of 52rem for both GCR and flares. Again, the risk exposure is about a 1% increase in the risk of fatal cancer. So you see, once you know the actual details radiation is not a significant risk. The launch is a more significant risk than the radiation. Heck driving to the launch site likely carries a higher risk of fatal injury than the radiation risk.
If non-smoking astronauts had a 20% chance of developing fatal cancer before the trip, they raised their chance to just under 21% after the trip.
Regarding the need to develop hardware
"...things act differently in strange environments" Please. Physics and chemistry do not change just because we are on Mars. You'd think
The moon was not done for science at all. It was entirely a flags and footprints mission. Yet we gained a lot of scientific value from it in the process of doing it.
It also uses the least testing.
Depends on what you consider testing. Many things do not need testing because we already know them to work, or have already tested them. The 90-day report called for developing an entirely new industry: on-orbit construction. Yes, that requires a great deal of testing because it is entirely new.
We've had ongoing test and development for several years already (and some aspects for a decade). The crucial aspects of the MD reference mission are actually better tested than the crucial components of Apollo. Indeed, most of MD will be far better tested than Apollo even aspired to.
The entire ISPP system can be fully tested here on Earth. The rover testing likewise is being carried out here on Earth. The Flashline and Desert research stations are conducting tests on suit manueverability and characteristics, metabolic rates during activity, on-site research methodologies, system interoperability, hab layout and material construction.
Apollo's orbital rendezvous was never tested - it couldn't be. MD doesn't use OR. It used tried and true "launch rocket direct to destination" method for both Earth departure and Mars departure.
The Mars Homestead Project plans actually call for full scale on-Earth implementation prior to launch. You can not got any more tested than that. Complete integration of each and every on site system including the human component. MHP is aimed at colonization not just expeditions.
The ISPP was to be present on one or two p
Nuclear is NOT an alternative energy source. It is a very dirty and dangerous power source. Anyone that believes that nuclear power is clean, cheap and safe has been brainwashed by the well-funded nuclear industry's public relations arm.
Or are atomic scientists or know enough about the reality, not the hype, or physics in general to know the truth. Physics doesn't lie. Coal plants put more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants. Fact. Even the worst accidents on record are not even a drop in the bucket in comparison to the fatalities caused every year by non-nuclear power generation systems. As of a few years ago, using small scale efforts, over 10% of the contaminated land around Chernobyl has been reclaimed. Mostly through the use of phytoremediation (use plants that naturally decontaminate). Over half of the pre-incident population still lives ther and a large part of the land initially effected has radiation levels that have naturally decreased to the levels needed for producing clean (i.e. radiation free) food, water, and livestock.
"According to the Nuclear Energy Agency (a specialized agency within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries based in Paris) only 31 persons as of April 2001 had died as a direct consequence of the accident. They were all either plant personnel or directly involved in fighting the fire following the explosion. Another 140 individuals from these same groups suffered varying degrees of radiation sickness and health impairment, but all had recovered fully with no permanent consequences. During the period between 1990 and 1998, in the regions affected by the explosion and subsequent fallout, officials diagnosed 1,791 cases of thyroid cancer that were assumed to have been caused by the radiation release."
-- Robert G. Williscroft of DefenceWatch.
And that's the worst real life actual event for nuclear energy. An event that is physically impossible in American reactor design.
Fact is we, the US, have decades of safe use of nuclear power reactors. Other countries have it as well. Once you get past the hype, you get enlightened.
Anyone who beleives nuclear is this horrible uncontainable monster has been brainwashed by lunatics and anti-reality scaremongers.
Mods: the parent post is not only insightful, it is incorrect. Please act accordingly.
Especially when the biggest fossil burning country reneges on Kyoto accords and is run by former president and vice president of oil or oil services companies.
/. rating system).
Which country would that be? Since the US never agreed to the Kyoto accords, it can't renege on them. Bill Clinton signed it but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. In July 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing any international treaty that would damage the economy by restricting energy usage, raising the cost of fuels for transportation, heating and electricity.
So clearly you are talking about some other country. Care to share which one?
It can't be China since it is exempt, and has no president. Russia has a president, but because of economic downturns, Russia's emissions are already below 1990 levels.
Also, since the Kyoto treaty is/was not to go into effect until 2008, and the reduction targets were not to be measured until 2012 (according to Sen. Joe Lieberman), and this is only 2005 no country can have reneged on them yet as there are still three years until it becomes binding.
So, mods, where is the truthful, or shall we simply say accurate, information in the parent post? Or are we saying that wrong, inaccurate information is still good? (Remember, informative is a positive assessment in the
First off, your "use Martian resources for fuel" is a bit far-fetched at this point. It is "dream" technology, at least on Mars for the first few missions. Second, speed is only a small part of the problem. What about safety? What happens if a buggy brakes down 50K from the ship?
;)
I'll assume you meant "breaks down", since it'll use "brakes" quite frequently.
Silly little bigot, even my 11 year old son knows the answer to that one: "The crew back at base hop in one of the other buggies and comes to get you, dad. Duh!". Then, you can take one of the u-rovers, head over to the first landing site (the first launch contains everything but the humans) and retrieve the backup p-rover. Since the p-rover is designed and built for multi-night journeys, the crew of the p-rover is in no additional danger from a transportation equipment failure.
Are you that lacking in ability to think? Good thing you don't work on any of this, clearly your mental capacity is ill-suited for it.
Also on your lunar dust example. Dust is clearly not an issue for the roborovers; what reality makes you think it would be for enclosed vehicles? none of the rovers in the MD plan rely on solar power, so dust on solar panels is not an issue. Fenders? We don't use them. You know, there are ways you can make yourself look less foolish. Researchng what you claim to know is a good one. had you done any research from what I gave you earlier, you would not have made such a stupid statement.
Yes, but untested on MARS.
Hmm tested on the same composition of atmosphere, same pressure of atmosphere, the only thing lacking is the gravity levels and if you think they are that much of an effect, well then your opinions on such matters aren't worth the bits you've wasted on it. Or are you so naive you think chemistry is different on Mars? News flash: chemistry works there just as it does here.
In your dreams. Estimates range from roughly about 80B to 600B. And all those atmospheric toys you dream about will add even more.
Ahh more evidence of dealing with a bigot. Care to put up your so called estimates by people who know what they are talking about, or is this just more robotic public masterbating? I suspect you can't back up your claims, nor will you likely even try. You are certainly welcome to.
The intitial tests and calibration of the ISPP mechanisms were done by Lockheed Martin in the early nineties. We know the costs. But you obviously have your mind made up and will refuse to be swayed by the facts and reality of the situation. Nonetheless these facts are linked to further down, as people with rational, functioning minds will find them interesting.
Imagine tripping on the slope near Burns Cliff where Opportunity explored at a fairly steep angle. An astronaut could tumble and bounce for a while down the slope of such a crater *gaining momentum* as they go. That crater is roughly stadium size. By the time Neil bounces to the bottom, he will have quite the momentum even under lower gravity. Remember those animations of the bouncy air bag landings? That is Neil bouncing down the walls of Endurance Crater. Low gravity means higher bounces, meaning less control over which part of you hits a sharp rock when you tumble down slopes.
Fortunately, Neil isn't as dumb as you are. He attaches a climbing rope to the rover before doing things like that. He then clips his suit to the rope attached to the rover and safely moves along.
Which is why we take the lab with us!
Not for a mere 25B.
Hardly. The cost of geological equipment is a drop in the bucket. Funny, you seem to think you can put them on rovers for under a billion but that somehow people aren't smart enough to put them on a hab for 25 billion. Your ignorance is glowing brightly. Besides, you clearly fail to understand that the cost of equipment you don't have to modify to work via robotic manipulation is less. Combine this with the fact that per-missio
Logical uses - military vehicles, for example - would come years before automobiles
;)
So, logical uses first, then use it on automobiles. So I guess using it on automobiles is not logical?
While your post is generally good ... ,insert the electrodes, add some acid as catalyst, and plug the wires into a battery. Voila! Oxygen in one, hydrogen in the other. Now Try making oil from wood with your chemistry kit.
Hydrogen can be built *instantly* with some electrolysis (either chemically or solar powered). I did it myself at home when i was a kid. You put these water-filled tubes in a bucket (upside down)
There are more ways than one to produce oil. Indeed, your example of turning wood into oil is actually understood, but it doesn't require a chemistry set or millions of years. TCP, Thermal Conversion Process, uses one of the methods that produced the oil we mine: heat and pressure.
If we can turn waste into oil, and we've proven we can, then we have a renewable resource. We've solved two problems with one solution (waste and energy resources in this case oil), provided zero-net atmospheric CO2 gain (if using ag wastes as the input), and taken advantage of the existing infrastructure. Sure, we could use wood, but it just isn't as efficient as using things like agricultural waste, dead animals, rubber tires, refigerator parts, human waste, etc. depending on what you want out of the process. Oh, and the efficiency of this process is roughly the same as electrolysing the water into hydrogen.
Given a choice between the two, I'd choose the already known process that utilizes existing infrastructure, existing transportation technology, and reclaims waste.
My problem with the "push for H2" is that it is always dependant on the government. The government will waste billions of dollars on "research grants" that for the most part just go to pay a salary for research assistants. If instead they government offered a bounty as the Ansari X-Prize did, I'd be less skeptical of calls for publicly funded hydrogen economy research.
I agree the parent post was not worthy of "insightful". Sadly, most so-moderated posts these days are in that category.
Cheers
Compare that to a single human rover
carrying a pair of scientists that can cover 100-150 kilometers per day.
No way. That is not realistic. The moon buggies moved only a few kilometers a day. Also, they had to stay fairly close to the ship in case there was a problem. There is no AAA on Mars. The best geology sites are usually rocky ones, and humans are not going to be able to move very fast around such. On flat land, such as where Opportunity landed, a rover could cruise around relatively fast also (although Oppy in particular was not built for speed).
Actually, it is very realistic. It's even conservative. Martian produced methane/oxygene (or even ethylene/oxygen), or methane powered internal combustion engines provide a lot more oomph for the pound than electrically driven rovers. The moon posessed no on site resources such as are used for the MD and MH plans. With this added size and power avaialble, larger wheels with more "offroad" suspension designed for cruising rocky areas is a viable means of transportation. The mars Society has had ongoing research and experimentation with rovers designed for this purpose. Indeed, the 38% gravity is aboon to getting up and over rocky outcroppings when compared to existing capabilities on Earth.
Given a maximum effective speed of a 1000Kg rover fully loaded of 15Km/hour the daylight only range of a pressurized rover is approximately 180Km. 15Km/hour over rough terrain is well within our capabilities. That's just under 10 MPH. As someone who has done a lot of off-roading 10MPH is not difficult to acheive as an average. It *might* be for a current navigation AI/robot combination but not in a human operated rover. For reference, human wallking speed on earth is about 3-5Mph average IIRC.
And ina rocky area a human will navigate it faster and with more success and leeway than our current robotic technology allows. Maybe someday (I hope), but not in the near future barring unexpected breakthroughs.
A roborover, being limited in
power and designed capabilites, as well as AI, will largely be single-minded.
That is false. The rovers often did imaging while running spectragraph readings.
No, I said "largely", and your example proved me correct. A human can do more than imaging while spectragraph readings are going on. he or she could be doing digging, land assessment, route planning, imaging, chemical composition testing, and so on. Indeed, a human can run several of these at a time. We know, we do it today here on Earth.
Regarding "sight", sure robots can "see" additional colors and so on. But so can a human using the equipment. Only it doesn't need to be integrated into a robotic mechanism. it's not like we'll be sending humans w/o equipment here, for crying out loud. "Sorry Joe but only what your eyes tell you". Nope, not happening.
With a manned expedition, we will be producing fuel from martian resources,
Not on the first missions. It would take far more study of Mars before we know how feasible that is. Nobody is going to risk life support on un-tried Mars resource extraction techniques.
You really need to get out more, so to speak. We've demonstrated the technology over a decade ago, and even refined it. It's gas era chemistry, man. Taking a hydrogen feedstock and using the Sabatier reaction (from the 1800's), we extract and mix with martian atmosphere (primarily the CO2 of which it is loaded) to produce methane, CO, ocygen and water. It's a simple and proven process. Many of the mechanisms have been in use by English, American, and Russian navies for a very long time.
Further, had you bothered to read up on it you woudl have known that the ISPP plans have the plants on site in advance and before humans leave Earth the needfuls have already been confirmed to have been produced.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in+situ+propel la nt+production%22+%22Pioneer+Astronautics%22&btnG=S earch
Will get
Mars Direct is the "low end" of missions, and will cost around 40 billion dollars for a mission; the upper end numbers are generally around 200 billion for a mission. There's a reason not to trust the lower-end numbers: they involve almost no testing beyond the basics. The philosophy of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" was disastrous, and I find it unlikely that they'll embark on it when human lives, not robots, are at risk.
;)
No, even NASA backed off of it's BG missions and now have changed their reference mission to Mars Semi-Direct. The 200 Billion doillar missions involved elaborate plans to build multiple Ark-like ships in orbit including space stations to do so, and so on. They've since backed off of this ludicrous plan.
MD is not "low end" it is reasonable and doable. It assumes technology no greater than that of the late sixeties. Using current technology the capabilities are far greater. Mars Direct is NOT FBC, it is "oh this makes more sense than that other way", despite your mischaracterization.
In situ propellant production for the return trip and on-site travel, in addition to in situ production of the water and oxygen needed for a 6 month stay cuts the launch costs tremendously. If you knew any of the MD details you would know that the level of redundancy is far and away more than any space mission to date. We even use robotics to land the first hab, earth return vehicle, resource production, rovers, etc. prior to human leaving the planet. And robotics are used to ensure we have the resources produced prior to launch as well. Never in the history of NASA has a mission had such a safety factor.
No testing? Are intentionally ignorant of the facts or just accidentally so? Perhaps you might gain from learning that teh Mars society is operating several research stations that test quite a variety of things. The In Situ production of fuel, air, and water has been done almost ad nauseum. Hab use, surveying equipment, suits, techniques, and human testing has been and continues to be ongoing.
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station Started in 2000: http://www.marssociety.org/arctic/index.asp
Mars Desert Research Station
http://www.marssociety.org/mdrs/index.asp
In fact, the level of testing todate far exceed the level of testing for Apollo's on site needs. But that clearly doesn't seem to stop people from assuming the opposite when it suits them.
If mobility was desired for the robots, they can do it far better.
Absolutely and I never said the contrary. The difference is you start increasing costs fast, which rapidly reduces any perceived cost advantage.
Large roborovers will require larger launch vessels, which means upping the costs far more than the 400 million per rover.
BTW, before you keep extrapolating, the rover is *NOT* going to go "27,000 km of martian surface". It is a fuelled rover, and must return to base.
No kidding, gee you think as a designer of rovers I might have known that. Hmm guess it's back to the ol' drawing board. Not exactly.
You see, if you carried the original argument of area covered you would have realized what I was saying. You've got 360 degrees of direction to explore from from your landing point. Indeed it can be argued that this type of central base model provides a greater detail of a given area as opposed to meandering around.
Further, had I been extrapolating insted of doing simple math, I would have pointed out tha width of the travelled corridor. The roborovers being referenced have a corridor that is very small. In a rover that carries humans your corridor is expanded. Of course, so is your range. The pressurized rover designs being planned on include the ability to stay for several days in the rover, thus allowing you to remain in areas that show significant interest as well as provide additional range from walking and other mor elocalized modes of travel.
For example, the "bottom end" design you look
Before we spent a trillion dollars (conservatively, probably would be more) on colonizing an inhospitable planet,
;)
Sigh. Another "trillion dollars" drone. How about reality which is more on the order of 25-40 billion for the full development up to and including the first mission, and 5-7 billion per mission after that.
Think, Research, Learn, Think again, then post.
I'd like to see some evidence that getting off earth is the best way to preserve the human species.
Not that I argue this as a cause for Mars, but asteroid impacts on earth would not be had on mars. By becoming more than a single-planet species we improve our odds of surviving that eventual impact.
If we are really concerned about survival, let's make the deserts bloom, reverse the destruction of the landscape, etc here on Earth... all infinitely easier than colonizing Mars.
Do you realize what would be involved in "getting the deserts to bloom"?!? Yeah only a small bit of terraforming the Earth to get the weather patterns to change or to enclose the deserts to eliminate natural weather as a factor, or control of the weather on a near continuous basis. Do you have any idea of the costs involved in that?
On the other hand, Martian colonization is cheap and easy in comparison. How big of colony do you consider a success in your guesses?
Mars represents an opportunity.
Consider resource usage. It has been shown that mining the asteroids from earth, the moon, or LEO/GEO is prohibitively expensive. However, using Mars as a base of operations for the mining, the costs including the Martian outpost costs, are not only workable but quite profitable.
An observatory on Mars would be more effective out outer system observation, as well as extra-system observation.
But, actually, we can't.
;)
...assuming I were interested.
Actually we can. www.marssociety.org, Mars Direct, and so on. How about getting educated before making such ridiculous statements on slashdot where you wind up getting schooled?
And before you say it's horribly expensive: 26-39 billion inlcuding the first mission with additional missions 5.2-7 billion after that. The state of California could do it. As could Florida, or Texas, or even Hawaii. Bill Gates or Microsoft could do it and still have plenty in the bank. heck MS could practically do it off of interest.
NASA's annual budget is in the neighborhood of 15-16 billion/year IIRC. if done over a course of say 10 years, it'd run NASA about 3.9 billion/year on average, or about a quarter of their existing budget.
And we had the capability and technology to do it some 30 years ago.
far more likely to do real hard science,
Robots don't do science. They gather data, nothing more. They are also just as prone to die, and are actually just as fragile just in different ways.
Would you go to a parade that had a team of 200 NASA engineers in it, or a group of dashing brave looking astrocore men and women?
The 200 engineers. More likely to get an inside track on a job there
That's funny. :)
;) No, I am not kidding.
And yes, actually we know the cost to be about 3 million dollars per month.
So, how long could a human stay on Mars? Two months at max?
Uhhh years. No offense but where do you get your information, slashdot?
The Mars Direct plan uses in situ production fo fuel, water, and oxygen and includes a 6 month on planet stay.
Given a means of producing food, a continually manned scientific outpost of 4-12 people could be easily sustained for many many years.
But for government tax dollars the goal should be the most most valuable science for the least most safe dollars.
Least most safe?
Is there any reason we couldn't design a team of robots to function nominally for 5 years?
Yes: costs and expertise. You'd need a roborover that could either perform maintenance on itself (complexity, weight, power) or one that didn't require any. Figure out the latter part and you'll make a fortune in maintenance free robots here on Earth.
Additinal complexity means more weight and power which means more development, equipment, and launch costs. These suckers already cost 400Mill apiece.
You could launch 50-500 (depending on your cost estimates) robotic mars missions for the cost of one manned mission, each exploring a different aspect of the planet. Pardon me if I think "better on the fly decision making" isn't worth 49-199 missions.
... about 90 IIRC. 90 roborovers will run you about 36 billion, and many many years.
You are pardoned. And incorrect. The two rovers in question cost 600M combined, and each year beyond the first is apparently costing nearly 3 million dollars per month, at the cost of leaving 2 days a week for the rovers to sit and recharge.
So, using the actual costs (not estimates) and assuming the distribution holds by using the same rover design just sending more of them.
50 missions will cost about 20 billion dollars. 500 will cost you in the neighborhood of 200 billion dollars. No, economies of scale don't apply too well yet to launches and any cost benefits seen in launch costs will apply to manned missions as well so they are negated in your argument.
The Mars Direct plan was cost analyzed in 2004 by NASA and the ESA. NASA estimates the high end of 39.4 billion inlcuding the first mission, with follow on missions running 7 billion. The ESA has these figures at 26.6 and 5.2 billion respectively. Note these are six month on planet stays by four to six scientists, with a few tonnes of scientific equipment, and rover-vehicles capable of covering around 150+ Km/day. The cost of this would be spread out over about 5-12 years.
Thus the cost of your 500 roborover "plan" - which would have to cover a time span of over a hundred years if we could launch five per year - would pay for (200-40 = 160; 160/7 = 22) 23 manned expeditions to Mars using the much more expensive NASA calculations. Using the ESA costs your 500 roborover "plan" would pay for (200-27=173; 173/5.2=33) 34 manned missions to Mars. Again, assuming no benefits from economies of scale, and rounding in favor of higher costs.
However, the manned missions as specced out have so many redundancies that after the first dozen or so you could continue the same missions requirements for about 50-65% of the cost due to on site capabilities from previous missions. But we'll leave those out of the equation.
Also, assuming every other year launches for the manned expeditions gives is a time span of less than a hundred years. Annual launches would mean 24 years from the first launch. Add in 6 years of prior development and that's 30 years.
The area that can be covered by this mission design would take nearly 50 rovers of the current design about 60 years to accomplish when calulating time to arrival and assuming each one can operate for 4 years at full power (hardly a reasonable assumption at this time). Given the 6 month stay and rover vehicles, a four man team can cover up to 27,000Km of Martian surface. At 100m/day how many rovers will be needed to cover that same amount of ground? If we can get 2 years of them
Don't kid yourself. Far, far more science will get done with robotic missions for your dollar.
It seems it is you who is kidding us. Robotic exploration has it's place, but it is foolish to assume it is the most cost efficient manner. Robotic exploration is best suited for determining the best landing sites and on planet resources for the follow on human landings.
If you are not a robot-bigot, and instead are an openminded person, I'd recommend you to learn of and study Mars Direct, even Mars Semi-Direct, as well as the Mars Homestead Project. You'll find that your preconceived notions of manned exploration expense and robot efficacy are not in line with reality.
www.marssociety.org will be a good starting place.
Happy researching.
For the same cost as astronauts, we can have 20 or more robots with higher
bandwidth at 20 different locations. And, they can stay there a long time,
unlike astronauts (unless we build a very expensive base). The Tortus wins
this race in the end.
You assume a "big expensive base". Yet it has been shown that this is not
needed. Robots have other shortcomings I'll deal with below. But one to
address here is cost.Robots are very task oriented. If you discover something
unexpected, or think of something you didn't several years ago when the
project got started you now have another several year period to go back and
retry something a bit differently. This problem is going to persist until we
have full human form robots and a pretty darned good AI.
20 robots over 4 years are going to do more science than a couple of humans
can in a month. And, cover a wider variety of territory.
First, you misuse the term "science". Collecting data and doing chemical
analysis is not science. It is data gathering and performing chemical
analysis. Science requires rational thought and the testing and re-evaluation
of hypotheses. No robot without these capabilities can do "science". Therefore
a million robots over a decade would do less science than a single human on
Mars for a month. Robots are simple creations for specific, simple tasks.
Nothing more.
That said, what are the scientific implications of humans on Mars as opposed
to robots? Here, humans win hands down. The limitations of robots even in data
mining are too costly for long term operations. Let us say for instance one of
the rovers found a fossil. What can it it about it? Unless it was designed for
fossil study, all it can do is take a picture. A human on site, however can
examine the area for additional ones, assess the layout of the area visually,
compare the layout of the fossile in relation and determine additinal courses
of action and so on.
He or she could also communicate with a paleontologist back on Earth, for
example, on the fossil and carry out additional studies on it with only a half
hour delay as opposed to several years to design, build, and transport a new
bot designed to do limited data gathering regarding the fossil.
And no, as someone who has had to deal with pictures as intel, pictures do not
give you the layout and feel of the land that a human observer does.
On the "covered ground", sorry again you are incorrect. The cost of your 20
roborovers operating for 4 years is more, and covers less ground than a set of
humans with rovers when you compare teh scientific return.
Look at the speed of the rovers. Double it. Now compare
that with a set of humans using in situ fuel production to power a land based
rover capable of covering over a hundred Km in a day. The two current roborovers
can cover 100 meters in a full day. Compare that to a single human rover
carrying a pair of scientists that can cover 100-150 kilometers per day. Your
20 roborovers (assuming they are no more costly than the current two) will cost
you over 8 billion dollars. Each roborover can cover 100 meters distance in a
day, making it a maximum of 36.5 kilometers in a year, or a maximum of 146Km over 4 years
(assuming no losses of roborovers fo course) that's a maximum distance of
Multiplied by 20 that's a maximum distance covered of about 2920 Km for your 8 billion.
Compare this to humans on planet for six months (the current reference mission of Mars
Direct). Each day they have a maximum distance they can cover of 150Km.
Assume further that only a single team goes out at a time. That comes out to
4500Km/month (30 days). Over the mission stay of six months that 4 person team
can cover a maximum of 27,000Km. All this in a short six month period. The
cost per mission of Mars Direct? About 5.2-7 billion.
So let us figure that out in dollars per Km covered as you claim is in favor
As a sys admin in an advertising department of a huge corporation, I've been trying to move my clients to OS X, but the lack of MAPI support (so my users can run an Outlook client and use the collaboration tools) has made this a pipe dream. Until Apple or MS ports MAPI, my users are stuck at OS 9. LDAP in my company is not an option, and the only other solution is Terminal Services. I wish Apple and Microsoft would clue into this -- I'm sure I'm not the only one with this issue... (emphasis added)
What makes you think MS doesn't already know this? Running OSX, even if running MS Apps there is an achilles heel to them. It gets you off of - or keeps you off of- their (Windows) platform, and even worse, moves you to a UNIX based platform. By not doing what you suggest they get to keep the "little guys" happy enough, but reserve the "big fish' for themselves.
I know personally of people considered and approached by google who do not have a degree. I've been in "degree only" positions w/o one.
.. uhh yeah you are going to have a hard time finding work in a field where proven ability is important. it is one reason college students get "intern" positions which can often lead to full time jobs after graduation.
/. needs a "fanboy agreement of basic knowledge/opinion" modifier.
It's why I apply anyway. If you've got the resume to back up your experience, I've found that many companies will be quite eager to consider you. I've even beat out people who have/had a degree.
Now, a college bound student w/o work history
BTW, mods. There is nothing insightful about the parent, nor this post. Not even the fact that these posts are not insightful is insightful. Interesting, perhaps, but not worth of "insightful".
Maybe
Ok, maybe that was a tad insightful.
maybe.
The question is, however, if you are presented the resume of someone with say close to decade of proven ability to do just that will you still shut them out for not having gotten a degree?
There is some geneva convention or something similar international agreament that blinding lasers are banned as military weapons. So the end result for laser warfare is that they make a STRONG laser intended to burn through tank, and the reflections from the tank that hit eye will have blinding result, but thats not the lasers MAIN purpose, an equipment destruction lasers are allowed in the agreament.
/me opens fire sending slags of metal into said targets.
/me opens up again. *budda**budda**budda**budda*
Wouldn't suprise me. On the 50 cal range in training this actually transpired:
"The Geneva convention disallows the use of the M2 as a weapon against personnel, only equipment. [pause] Your first target is that group of troops at 75 meters. Commence firing.
instructor: Private, why did you open fire on those troops after being told it was illegal to do so?
me: Drill Sgt. I did not fire upon those troops. I opened fire on their LBE, weapons, and the tracked vehicle behind them! Those are all equipment and therefore legal targets.
instructor: Carry on, Private!
You know, used right a ma deuce can be used to put out small range fires.
On the laser issue though, lasers used for rangefinding or guided munitions are perfectly legal. Hey if it happens to get blocked by someone's eye, oh well. Not like the incoming munitions wouldn't be finishing him off any moment anyway.
The OP made up a blatantly false article and it got through? Is it really too much to ask that you at least check the links in the article submission? After all, what if someone submitted links using tinyurl.com that were to shall we say less savory websites? Even a cursory 5 minute check of the B612 site would have shown the falseness of the submission.
The person submitting the article didn't happen to work for CBS or NBC, did s/he?
Considering the direction that corporate pensions
and benefits are headed in the USA, which is:
none (now 401K)
Actually, the 401ks are more stable and reliable than the old pension system. Under the old pension system if the company goes belly up, you lose it. With 401ks if the company goes belly up, your 401k is still there. Also, in an age of frequent job changes, a 401k provides carryover benefit whereas the pension system had you lose your accrued benefit.
and shrinking (eg. medical)
My medical coverage got better. But we are overinsured in that field so some "shrinkage" would be good. Boy there's joke in there somewhere.
Most US corporations require that employees
sign away all their rights to any innovation,
regardless of whether it was developed on the
job (or even job-related) or not. Even without
relinquishing such rights, the employee has
little legal recourse in American courts.
Actually in my experience with BigCorps, unless your development can be shown to have been developed at work or at least directly related to your job they've mos toften lost in court. Most BigCorps know that their sweeping "we own everything you think about" agreements fail to hold water in court so they often silenty "ignore" your innovations that have nothing to do with your job and were not done on company time/owned equipment. The risk of losing in a public courtroom is too great a threat to the implied threat. Rather like "better to silently ignore it and let your agreement seem iron-clad than to sue and show it is full of holes".
And yes, I speak from experience.
I am not sure which is worst, the patent system or corporate greed.
The patent system. At least corproate greed drives some innovation, the patent system as it sits now is mostly used to block innovation (or even perceived innovation). Usually by corporate greed.
Take the patent (armed monopoly enforcement) away and corproate greed loses a main tool in stifling innovation and advancement.
You can't take away greed; corporate or otherwise.